Sunday, October 9, 2016

Controlled Demolition – A Peer-Reviewed Scientific Analysis of the World Trade Center Collapses by Europhysics News

For over a decade, citizens of the United States and people from around the world have been handed a story about the events of September 11, 2001. We have been compelled by mainstream media to accept this explanation as though it was the most reasonable, the most scientific, and indisputable explanation in existence. Yet along with this supposedly scientific information, there was another message.

It has become common among modern corporate rhetoric to ridicule, demean, and dismiss anything alternative to the message which corporate sources hand us. Any mainstream explanation of events, no matter how inconsistent or nonsensical the explanation may be, we the common people are expected to accept it simply because it comes from a supposedly reliable authority. This is not an intelligent way of communication or thought.

Any and every segment of information we encounter as grown adults requires a level of diligent examination in order to be determined valid. There are no exceptions to this rule for mature and responsible adults. However, this does not reflect the modern expectation of social conformity in today's society. In modern times, we are expected to keep our head down, to never ask questions that rock the boat, and to never speak up if we notice inconsistencies. If we do speak up, we are often attacked.

This attack does not come from some overlord, or a tyrannical dictator fixated on control. This attack comes from the very people around us—the people we know and who supposedly trust and respect us, granted we conform just as they do. However, if we deviate from the assigned societal script, we receive the attack. To be clear, within this article we plan to deviate—a lot, not from reason, not from evidence, and not from sanity as some may claim, but from societal fear of controversial and yet provable information.

Getting Down to It

It is common for most traditional Americans to claim that they live in a "free country." However, the regular societal control we receive from our peers seems to prove otherwise. In freedom, we think, act, and speak for ourselves (granted that freedom does not encroach on the freedoms of others), but in our modern thought-controlled society, this is not so. This situation is not defined as “free,” by any stretch of the imagination. Let's consider the common thought about 9/11.

The events of September 11, 2001 have been used as an excuse to launch one of the most violent, one of the most internationally hazardous and destructive campaigns this world has seen in decades. The infamous War on Terror has been the bane of existence for millions of people in multiple nations, both in the United States, and around the world. The 9/11 attacks were claimed as the reason that justified this international war machine for the past 15 years. Yet the original story which was forcibly dictated to the people was never completely supported.

The official explanation of the 9/11 collapses has been a protected absolute in the mouths of American politicians ever since the attacks took place. Yet, no secondary investigation or independent scientific verification for the World Trade collapses on 9/11 was ever allowed—that is until now.

For over a decade, a team of professionals known as the “Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth” have been hard at work researching and re-investigating the science behind the collapse of the World Trade towers. Much of the data they found contradicted the official explanation from the NIST and the 9/11 Commission. Yet this data was so convincing that a prestigious scientific journal chose to publish their findings in a ground-shaking article titled “15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses.” This article detailed the scientific findings researched and compiled over years of time.

When considering the publication of these studies in a scientific periodical, it is important for us to note the significance of this study. This quality of publication represents some of the most coveted levels of current scientific research. No research reaches these scientific publications unless they are verified by multiple rigorous scientific studies—a process known as peer review. So when we read this information, we can be assured that it is not random information being thrown around like the average internet disinformation site.

When a scientific journal publishes any story, they stake their reputation on that story. Consequently, these articles are typically high in quality. So without further adieu, here is Europhysics News on the World Trade collapses.

In August 2002, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) launched what would become a six-year investigation of the three building failures that occurred on September 11, 2001 (9/11): the well-known collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers that morning and the lesser-known collapse late that afternoon of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by an airplane. NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.”

Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, whereby explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally. Although NIST finally concluded after several years of investigation that all three collapses on 9/11 were due primarily to fires, fifteen years after the event a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists are unconvinced by that explanation.

This excerpt basically spells out the intent behind the article. There is no getting around the controversy this proposal may foster. However, as in any situation, we must thoroughly evaluate all possibilities of occurrence if we truly care about getting to the truth. This does not include any knee-jerk reaction which some may have the moment one stops repeating the assigned social script.

In light of our responsibility to thorough examination, let's consider a few things. Since 2001, there have been multiple high-rise fires reported in mainstream media which have occurred around the world. All of these involved significant damage and thousands of dollars in repair work. Yet not a single one of them ever result in the type of structural collapse we saw in 2001—not one. Yet this total-collapse phenomenon happened three times in the same day in the same city on September 11, and immediately afterward, the public was told not to question the events. This does not add up.

Let's consider one of the fires which consumed a portion of a hotel in Dubai. This article comes to us from the Chicago Tribune from July, 2016 and gives details on the significance of this fire.

A residential skyscraper in Dubai caught fire on Wednesday in the densely populated Marina district, sending plumes of smoke into the air and pieces of the building's facade tumbling below.

The afternoon blaze engulfed the upper floors of the Sulafa Tower. The fire quickly spread to other floors and the sides of the building with flames engulfing more than 30 stories and scorching the exterior of the building. It appeared to have spread to the interiors of some of the apartments, as well.

Nora Maki, who lives across the street, says the flames "spread like wildfire" but that firefighters "did an amazing job" of getting it under control. Firefighters could be seen on some of the balconies trying to reach out to extinguish the fire.

The fire did not cause any casualties and civil defense crews evacuated all residents to ensure their safety, according to the official Twitter account of the Dubai Media Office.

It is the latest in a number of skyscraper fires across the United Arab Emirates in recent months. The most prominent was a New Year's inferno at a 63-story residence near the world's tallest tower, the Burj Khalifa. Police also blamed the fire at the upscale The Address Downtown Dubai building on faulty wiring.

According to this report, the fire alarm was pulled at about 2 am, local time. After the fire was extinguished, residents were allowed to return to their homes at 4:30 am. This is one of numerous high-rise fires which have burned for hours on end, and yet we see zero collapse and zero structural damage. We do not see these buildings free-fall collapsing into their own footprint. The stability of this hotel displays what modern skyscrapers are supposed to do given that no explosives are used to bring them down. However, even though the scientific conclusion has been stated, let's withhold our conclusion for the moment and examine further.

Those who are familiar with the extensive research of the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth will find the above excerpt familiar. On this subject, below is the short video of the research of the Architects and Engineers included in the well-known documentary.

Architects and Engineers: Solving the Mystery of Building 7 - Ed Asner

Upon initial independent examination, the flawed nature of the official explanation of Building 7 would seem obvious. However, to those who worship the words proclaimed by authorities, to contradict the official explanation was considered blasphemous. I would be willing to bet that if this official story was never handed to the public, no one would have come to the conclusion on their own.

One could easily search on YouTube for videos on building implosions in cities such as Las Vegas, NV where these implosions are turned into public spectacles with pyrotechnics included. One could easily watch a number of these implosions and then watch the collapse of Building 7 and see the exact same speed and dynamic of collapse. However, for some, the compulsion to conform and submit to the words of acting authority is just too strong. However, this is changing at an ever-increasing pace.

A Series of Unlikely Events

The next section of the article is very effective in further proving the point of the unlikelihood of an unassisted collapse on 9/11/01. According to the data, these collapses were not chance occurrences, nor were they caused by jet fuel alone. Given what we know about modern architecture, there is no sense in accepting the official story of the 9/11 collapses. However, instead of talking on the specifics, I will let the professionals speak. Here is Europhysics in the section titled, "Preventing high-rise failures."

Steel-framed high-rises have endured large fires without suffering total collapse for four main reasons:

1) Fires typically are not hot enough and do not last long enough in any single area to generate enough energy to heat the large structural members to the point where they fail (the temperature at which structural steel loses enough strength to fail is dependent on the factor of safety used in the design. In the case of WTC 7, for example, the factor of safety was generally 3 or higher. Here, 67% of the strength would need to be lost for failure to ensue, which would require the steel to be heated to about 660°C).

2) Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state;

3) Structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods;

4) Steel-framed high-rises are designed to be highly redundant structural systems. Thus, if a localized failure occurs, it does not result in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse. Countless other steelframed high-rises have experienced large, long-lasting fires without suffering either partial or total collapse (see, for example, Fig. 1a and 1b) [1].

WTC 5 is an example of how steelframed high-rises typically perform in large fires. It burned for over eight hours on September 11, 2001, and did not suffer a total collapse (Source: FEmA).

Here we see further proof that steel-framed structures do not suffer total collapse due to the fact that they are designed to withstand such forces. Let's also consider the common argument that the buildings were not designed to handle the impact of the Boeing 767s which supposedly crashed into them. It is claimed by those who still subscribe to mainstream supposition that jet fuel in one section of a building can cause the entirety of the supports of that building to catastrophically fail simultaneously. Let's also consider the fact that Building 7, which was never struck by a plane, crumbled at free-fall speed in the exact same way which the twin towers did.

Building 7 ended up pancaking into its own footprint just like the twin towers. The collapse reached free-fall speed and completed in roughly 7 seconds.

Once again, we are left with the only logical explanation for buildings which pancake into their own footprints. This is three buildings crumbling in the exact same way, in the exact same city, on the exact same date. Never in the history of architecture has anything like this ever happened by mere chance. According to objective scientific analysis, this happened by design. Let's continue with the article.

Controlled demolition is not a new practice. For years it was predominantly done with cranes swinging heavy iron balls to simply break buildings into small pieces. Occasionally, there were structures that could not be brought down this way. In 1935, the two 191-m-tall Sky Ride towers of the 1933 World’s Fair in Chicago were demolished with 680 kg of thermite and 58 kg of dynamite. Thermite is an incendiary containing a metal powder fuel (most commonly aluminum) and a metal oxide (most commonly iron(III) oxide or “rust”).

Eventually, when there were enough large steel-framed buildings that needed to be brought down more efficiently and inexpensively, the use of shaped cutter charges became the norm. Because shaped charges have the ability to focus explosive energy, they can be placed so as to diagonally cut through steel columns quickly and reliably. In general, the technique used to demolish large buildings involves cutting the columns in a large enough area of the building to cause the intact portion above that area to fall and crush itself as well as crush whatever remains below it.

This technique can be done in an even more sophisticated way, by timing the charges to go off in a sequence so that the columns closest to the center are destroyed first. The failure of the interior columns creates an inward pull on the exterior and causes the majority of the building to be pulled inward and downward while materials are being crushed, thus keeping the crushed materials in a somewhat confined area—often within the building’s “footprint.” This method is often referred to as “implosion.”

In addition to resisting ever-present gravity loads and occasional fires, high-rises must be designed to resist loads generated during other extreme events—in particular, high winds and earthquakes. Designing for high-wind and seismic events mainly requires the ability of the structure to resist lateral loads, which generate both tensile and compressive stresses in the columns due to bending, the latter stresses then being combined with gravity-induced compressive stresses due to vertical loads.

It was not until steel became widely manufactured that the ability to resist large lateral loads was achieved and the construction of high-rises became possible. Steel is both very strong and ductile, which allows it to withstand the tensile stresses generated by lateral loads, unlike brittle materials, such as concrete, that are weak in tension. Although concrete is used in some high-rises today, steel reinforcement is needed in virtually all cases. To allow for the resistance of lateral loads, high-rises are often designed such that the percentage of their columns’ load capacity used for gravity loads is relatively low.

The exterior columns of the Twin Towers, for example, used only about 20% of their capacity to withstand gravity loads, leaving a large margin for the additional lateral loads that occur during high-wind and seismic events [2]. Because the only loads present on 9/11 after the impact of the airplanes were gravity and fire (there were no high winds that day), many engineers were surprised that the Twin Towers completely collapsed. The towers, in fact, had been designed specifically to withstand the impact of a jetliner, as the head structural engineer, John Skilling, explained in an interview with the Seattle Times following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building.

There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." Skilling went on to say he didn’t think a single 200-pound [90-kg] car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to either of the Twin Towers. "However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage…. I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." In other words, Skilling believed the only mechanism that could bring down the Twin Towers was controlled demolition.

Once again, this is the independent, objective and scientific perspective which a reputable scientific journal finally decided to acknowledge. In light of these findings, the words of the unprofessional and scientifically inexperienced skeptics mean absolutely nothing. The bottom line is that the intelligent never blindly doubt an idea until they have logical reason to do so. However, the common pseudo-skeptic will blindly doubt nearly everything which disagrees with the status quo.

This is typically because they are either paid to pretend to know more than they actually do, or they are simply afraid of change and/or want attention. It is fairly easy to tell the difference between the blind pseudo-skeptic and those who actually respect the scientific discipline they propose. Those with educations to speak of will show the fact. However, there are those who have notable education, but fail to remain objective in their studies.

This is why peer review is necessary for accurate research, and this is why the material within this article has been reviewed in this way, not by the armchair skeptic, and not be those who pretend to have more knowledge than they actually do. This is proven by those who have the discipline, intelligence and open-mindedness to forgo conclusion until all avenues of possibility have been considered. This is responsible science. However this responsibility was not at all shown by the 9/11 Commission, as is discussed in this next excerpt.

Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile, had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report from mid-2005 to November 2008. As late as March 2006, NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” All the while, NIST was steadfast in ignoring evidence that conflicted with its predetermined conclusion. The most notable example was its attempt to deny that WTC 7 underwent free fall.

When pressed about that matter during a technical briefing, Dr. Sunder dismissed it by saying, “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.” But in the case of WTC 7, he claimed, “there was structural resistance that was provided.” Only after being challenged by high school physics teacher David Chandler and by physics professor Steven Jones (one of the authors of this article), who had measured the fall on video, did NIST acknowledge a 2.25-second period of free fall in its final report. Yet NIST’s computer model shows no such period of free fall, nor did NIST attempt to explain how WTC 7 could have had “no structural components below it” for eight stories. Instead, NIST’s final report provides an elaborate scenario involving an unprecedented failure mechanism: the thermal expansion of floor beams pushing an adjoining girder off its seat.

The alleged walk-off of this girder then supposedly caused an eight-floor cascade of floor failures, which, combined with the failure of two other girder connections—also due to thermal expansion—left a key column unsupported over nine stories, causing it to buckle. This single column failure allegedly precipitated the collapse of the entire interior structure, leaving the exterior unsupported as a hollow shell. The exterior columns then allegedly buckled over a two-second period and the entire exterior fell simultaneously as a unit [3]. NIST was able to arrive at this scenario only by omitting or misrepresenting critical structural features in its computer modelling.[4]

Correcting just one of these errors renders NIST’s collapse initiation indisputably impossible. Yet even with errors that were favorable to its predetermined conclusion, NIST’s computer model (see Fig. 3) fails to replicate the observed collapse, instead showing large deformations to the exterior that are not observed in the videos and showing no period of free fall. Also, the model terminates, without explanation, less than two seconds into the seven-second collapse. Unfortunately, NIST’s computer modelling cannot be independently verified because NIST has refused to release a large portion of its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety.”

Whereas NIST did attempt to analyze and model the collapse of WTC 7, it did not do so in the case of the Twin Towers. In NIST’s own words, “The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower….this sequence is referred to as the ‘probable collapse sequence,’ although it includes little analysis of the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”[5]

Thus, the definitive report on the collapse of the Twin Towers contains no analysis of why the lower sections failed to arrest or even slow the descent of the upper sections—which NIST acknowledges “came down essentially in free fall” [5-6]—nor does it explain the various other phenomena observed during the collapses. When a group of petitioners filed a formal Request for Correction asking NIST to perform such analysis, NIST replied that it was “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” because “the computer models [were] not able to converge on a solution.” However, NIST did do one thing in an attempt to substantiate its assertion that the lower floors would not be able to arrest or slow the descent of the upper sections in a gravity-driven collapse.

There is one thing we need to understand about the cryptic meaning behind the term public safety. In modern times, this term has proven not to represent the actual public of the United States. It has become painfully obvious after the passing of countless governmental policies which ignore public opinion, which ignore human rights, and many times, abandon reason altogether that have convinced me (and many others I'm sure) that there is little concern for the actual citizens of American. Instead of serving the people of the America, the officials of this country have resorted to serving the wealthy along with themselves. These large corporate entities then turn around and give the corrupt officials financial kickbacks so that they will continue serving money instead of the people.

In light of this, I am convinced that the commonly-used terms public safety and national security do not—in any way—refer to the actual public or the people of this country. Instead these terms refer to the elitist who have stolen this country from the actual people. They consider themselves the nation and the public, and from what I can see, they consider the rest of us their enemies. This will explain the crimes and violence perpetrated by these officials and directed toward the people on a seemingly constant basis. The 9/11 attacks may have been one of many of these offenses either allowed and/or perpetrated by these officials. However, we have not yet discussed the evidence of this particular proposal.

Assessing Possible Motive

The beginning of the Europhysics article included a disclaimer which states that there is some speculation with regard to the contents of the article. If I were to guess, I would say that the speculation consisted of the possible motives of those who seemed to be deliberately avoiding the complete investigation the situation required.

In my observation, for the original 9/11 Commission to be so careless as to make assumptions and dismiss certain possibilities based upon those assumptions is unprofessional and irresponsible. We cannot say with 100-percent certainty what the motives were for the omission of data and lack of thoroughness of the original investigation. However, I personally see fewer alternatives than to suggest that the original study was deliberately fabricated and rushed through. This was likely done to justify a war which the financial powers of the West already planned to instigate and initiate.

We hear from General Wesley Clark, that the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, and Syria were already planned long before there was ever reported to be justification to do so. However, before continuing on that topic, let's complete the next excerpt. This section details the specifics of the WTC collapses which reveal telling consistency with the average building implosion.

The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.

The collapse mechanics discussed above are only a fraction of the available evidence indicating that the airplane impacts and ensuing fires did not cause the collapse of the Twin Towers. Videos show that the upper section of each tower disintegrated within the first four seconds of collapse. After that point, not a single video shows the upper sections that purportedly descended all the way to the ground before being crushed. Videos and photographs also show numerous high-velocity bursts of debris being ejected from point-like sources (see Fig. 5). NIST refers to these as “puffs of smoke” but fails to properly analyze them [6]. NIST also provides no explanation for the midair pulverization of most of the towers’ concrete, the near-total dismemberment of their steel frames, or the ejection of those materials up to 150 meters in all directions.

NIST sidesteps the well-documented presence of molten metal throughout the debris field and asserts that the orange molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2 for the seven minutes before its collapse was aluminum from the aircraft combined with organic materials (see Fig. 6) [6]. Yet experiments have shown that molten aluminum, even when mixed with organic materials, has a silvery appearance—thus suggesting that the orange molten metal was instead emanating from a thermite reaction being used to weaken the structure [12]. Meanwhile, unreacted nano-thermitic material has since been discovered in multiple independent WTC dust samples [13].

It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.

From what I have observed in the last 15 years, I am compelled to believe that the original analysis from the NIST and the 9/11 Commission were not professionally derived. They were not based upon thorough scientific research or reliable personnel even though they were portrayed as such by corporate media. Given the numerous professionals who are expressing doubt over the last decade and a half, the original story seems only relevant to those of us who have no professional knowledge or experience in architecture and engineering. In my view, this is the most likely reason as to why no alternatives to the original, fundamentally flawed conclusion were ever allowed to be openly discussed.

We may be familiar with the disclosures of retired NSA operative John Perkins. Perkins is the well-known author of the biography titled, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." Within this account, Perkins discloses the entirety of his experiences as an economic manipulate of foreign figureheads. In essence, he and other economic hitmen were tasked with ensuring that these foreign leaders were acting in the best interests of Western corporations. Below is a quote by John Perkins transcribed from a speech he gave in 2005 at the One Earth Indigenous Nations Institute, and was aired on C-SPAN.

It's been our job to basically cheat third-world countries around the world out of trillions of dollars... ...and then funnel those dollars into US corporations, and also a few wealthy people in those third-world countries.

The most typical way that we work is that we'll identify a third-world country that has resources that we covet (the Panama Canal, a labor force in Haiti, for example... Often, it's oil.), and we'll make an arrangement with the leaders of that country for them to accept a loan from the World Bank or [its] affiliates, and the condition of that loan is that 90% of it will never leave the United States. It'll be sent from banks in Washington to banks in Houston, San Francisco, and New York, where the big engineering firms are.

These companies then, in association with many others will build projects in this third-world country like power plants, industrial parks, ports, that primarily serve the very, very rich people. Usually these things don't help the poor people at all. In fact, the countries then settle with a huge debt that they can't possibly repay, which is part of the plan.

So at some point, we economic hit men go back and say, “Look, you owe us a lot of money. You can't repay your debt. Therefor, sell all of your oil to our oil companies really cheap, or vote with us in the next U.N. vote that's critical to us, or provide land for our military base in your country.” It's a form of slavery, in a way.

(We may note that though Perkins gives quite a bit of detail on his former job, he is careful to avoid the subject of who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. This is most likely why he was allowed to be successful, and is not running for his life like so many other have.)

These Western corporations have played this deadly game of economic domination for over half a century, and as it turns out, the attacks on 9/11 were a classic catalyst for continuation of the game. These attacks were the perfect excuse to invade a foreign country, overthrow multiple leaders and install puppet governments who were agreeable to Western policy. This is what we have seen ever since Afghanistan, and it is exactly what we are seeing in Syria.

This economic game is the likely reason we see American war planes killing Syrian soldiers—not by accident, but by deliberate intent. This has been the intent ever since the plan to decimate and dominate the Middle East has existed, and even though the American people were only made aware of this plan in 2007, it is likely to have existed long before that.

Whether or not the plan to invade and overthrow 7 countries in 5 years existed before 9/11/01 is irrelevant. The attacks still served Western interests. They still allowed the complete abandonment of the American Constitution and the initiation of the free-range concentration camp the country has become in the decade following.

Our right to life and prosperity has been violated on a regular basis, and every day that goes by, we see the Hegelian schemes of these same financial manipulators take on a new form. Though the tactics behind these schemes have subtly changed over time, the overall game of economic and militaristic domination never have. There is one thing, however, that we may look forward to. This is hinted at in the cruel acts of the Dakota Access Pipeline project.

Signs of Positive Change

We are all likely to have seen the recent inhumanity and criminal actions of the North Dakota State Government. We may know of the all but complete disregard for the human rights demonstrated by the Energy Transfer Partners company. It is also likely that we know of the 17 big banks who commissioned and railroaded the project through. If we are aware of these details, we will also know how Washington has completely ignored the issue altogether. When they did bother to pay attention, they were only pretending to care while they continued these crimes against the American Natives on multiple fronts. This may seem unfortunate, and in many ways, it is. However, these events may be a sign of a positive shift in global events.

It used to be that the predatory corporations only preyed upon foreign third-world countries and resources, but at present, it seems that something has changed. The world is no longer ignorant of the games of this Western nuisance, and many American citizens are no longer interested in hearing about a supposed foreign invader coming to take our rights away. Many of us already know that the invader is already here. It is the corrupt governance and banking establishment that has been plaguing the world for 70-plus years. This invader took control then, and has been a constant pest ever since. However, there is significance in events such as the crimes committed against the Standing Rock Sioux of North Dakota.

This oil pipeline project may seem dire and difficult to overcome. However, the very existence and blatant criminality of its commission shows us that the economic predator of the world has begun to self-cannibalize. This pipeline project shows that foreign nations are no longer interested in putting up with the bribery of the economic hitmen. They have even gotten to the point where they are literally throwing these manipulators out of their country altogether. By these developments, it may only be a matter of time before the beast of predatory capitalism breathes its last.

The world sees the problem, and those who seem not to notice still notice somewhat. There is no escaping the fact that fascism has arisen in the West and has spread much like it did in the early 1930, and just like those fascist regimes slowly consumed themselves, so too will this one. The up side to all of this is that the end is in sight. All that we need now is to keep our eyes open, demand our rights be respected, and create the country and the world we want to live in.

I started DTM because I
feel that informing the people is the most positive and impactful
thing I am able to do at this point. I work at my articles as though
each one were my job, as I don't quite have the health to keep an
actual job right now. Somehow, I get more energized when I know I'm
having a positive impact in the lives of others.

Right now, I rely
upon donations and ads to keep my site going. Ideally, we would live
in a world free of the need for money of any kind. We will have that
world very soon, I believe, but in the mean time, I depend upon this
task to sustain me as I do my best to be dependable to you, my
readers. I hope “Discerning the Mystery” is a truly positive and
progressive experience for you.